Hi Bo, Thanks for your review! I've addressed your comments below along with local modifications to the document as noted. Bo Wu via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Reviewer: Bo Wu Review result: Has Nits Hi all, I have been selected as the Operational Directorate reviewer for this draft. Summary: I think this draft is ready for publication after the nits fixed. Comments: This draft uses IPsec tunnel mode to improve confidentiality by hiding inner packet identifiable information, packet size and packet timing. The document is well-written and readable. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Query: Section 4. Configuration of AGGFRAG Tunnels for IP-TFS This section defines the configurations of three parameters: Bandwidth, packet size, and congestion control. It also says "No standardized configuration method is required." As I see WG is working on YANG and MIB drafts related to this draft. I am wondering if these drafts can be referenced in this section as examples of the configuration and operation method?
I've added informational references to the drafts in this section.
Nits： - Expand on first use: ESP,CC 2.2.3.1. Optional Extra Padding OLD： While use of padding to avoid fragmentation does not impact interoperability, used inappropriately it can reduce the effective throughput of a tunnel. Suggest: While the use of padding to avoid fragmentation does not impact interoperability, using inappropriately it can reduce the effective throughput of a tunnel.
Going to leave this up to the RFC editor.
Appendix C C.1. Comparing Overhead OLD For comparing overhead the overhead of ESP for both normal and AGGFRAG tunnel packets must be calculated, Suggest： For comparing the overhead of ESP for both normal and AGGFRAG tunnel packets must be calculated
Fixed. Thanks, Chris.
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
